Pathfinder vs 3.5, Combat Maneuvers

[frogglesmash]

I'm not very familiar with the differences between the combat maneuver systems in Pathfinder, and 3.5, so I thought I'd see what the playground thought about the pros and cons of each system.
To be clear, I'm referring to things like bull rush, grappling, and trying, not blade magic.

[upho]

I think the most notable general differences are that combat maneuvers in PF:

demand more feats to really get going
have somewhat simpler mechanics using (largely) the same values (CMB/CMD)
include four options not existing in 3.5 (dirty trick, steal, reposition and drag)
come with a much greater number of good or great associated options
allow for much more numerous effective combos, to the point of making melee combat roles/foci like control and debuff at least as powerful as single-target damage

In short, during early levels these differences won't have much of an impact, while at later levels PCs focused on combat maneuvers can be significantly more effective in combat than in 3.5.

As a DM used to 3.5 but new to PF, I'd especially keep an extra eye on any PCs focusing on dirty trick, which is highly versatile and can be made vastly more powerful than anything melee in 3.5 if optimized. It's also worth noting the finer differences in the mechanics and at first seemingly identical related options of many maneuvers (compare for example 3.5's Improved Trip with PF's Greater Trip), plus some of the new niche uses of maneuvers existing also in 3.5, such as the very powerful barbarian rage powers Spell Sunder and Savage Dirty Trick.

There are of course also a ton of more specific related combos and tricks. Is there anything more specific you'd like to know more about?

[Psyren]

I'll add a couple more differences/attributes to upho's list:

- PF maneuvers are attack rolls rather than 3.5's combination of touch attacks and ability checks, which means they can interact with more parts of the system (particularly the ones like trip that use your weapon.)

- Starting most maneuvers in PF requires just a single roll, whereas several in 3.5 have a couple of steps to get going.

- The big weakness of PF maneuvers for characters that want to use them is their scaling, specifically that of the target number (CMD). Most monsters end up with very large CMD numbers because unlike CMB you get to add both Str and Dex instead of picking one, plus the monster's BAB, plus a number of AC boosters, plus a flat 10. Maneuver-using characters at mid-high levels thus need a lot of bonuses just to break even, much less have a decent success chance.

- Size matters a lot less in PF, with the modifiers for many rungs being slashed in half. Some maneuvers like trip also had their size ceiling removed.

[frogglesmash]

- The big weakness of PF maneuvers for characters that want to use them is their scaling, specifically that of the target number (CMD). Most monsters end up with very large CMD numbers because unlike CMB you get to add both Str and Dex instead of picking one, plus the monster's BAB, plus a number of AC boosters, plus a flat 10. Maneuver-using characters at mid-high levels thus need a lot of bonuses just to break even, much less have a decent success chance.

Would it be advisable to house rule CMD to only key off of the highest ability modifier, instead of both, or would that cause too many of its own problems?

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not very familiar with the differences between the combat maneuver systems in Pathfinder, and 3.5, so I thought I'd see what the playground thought about the pros and cons of each system.
To be clear, I'm referring to things like bull rush, grappling, and trying, not blade magic.

Most notably, they resolve faster at the game table; and have several interesting options that do not exist in 3.5 (e.g. ki throw, dirty trick, and granting OAs to your party members).

Although it is commonly said on forums that they require more feats in PF, if you do the math on it, this turns out to be incorrect (because traits, racial abilities, and cheap items exist for maneuvers).

[Kurald Galain]

Would it be advisable to house rule CMD to only key off of the highest ability modifier, instead of both, or would that cause too many of its own problems?

It wouldn't make a big difference.

However, note that (a) almost all bonuses to attack rolls also apply to maneuvers, and (b) various bonuses exist that are unique to manuevers. Yes, a mid-level monster has about 8 points higher CMD than its AC; but by that point, it doesn't require a big investment to get +8 to the maneuver of your choice. The issue Psyren alludes to only appears at very high levels, well above where the average group would ever play.

[CharonsHelper]

I agree with all that's been said - but I'll also point out a couple of specific differences.

In 3.5 tripping could knock flying targets out of the sky. In Pathfinder tripping doesn't affect flying targets at all. (Unless you have a specific weapon.)

Grappling in Pathfinder has you go into the same square as your foe as opposed to both of you staying in your current squares.


And I will agree that Dirty Trick is one of the most potentially powerful manuevers, but its only good with substantial investment and specific character abilities so that it can be done faster than a standard action. (Like a monk archetype who can use any manuever in a flurry - giving up normal flurry.)

[Psyren]

It wouldn't make a big difference.

However, note that (a) almost all bonuses to attack rolls also apply to maneuvers, and (b) various bonuses exist that are unique to manuevers. Yes, a mid-level monster has about 8 points higher CMD than its AC; but by that point, it doesn't require a big investment to get +8 to the maneuver of your choice. The issue Psyren alludes to only appears at very high levels, well above where the average group would ever play.

I'd say the operative word there though is "the maneuver of your choice." If you just have one, you can easily excel at it and the scaling issues don't matter until high up as you mentioned, but trying to do more can be annoying, particularly for classes without any kind of self-buffing/spellcasting capability or that can't change their feats/abilities without retraining. This is compounded by the fact that all the maneuvers have weaknesses in terms of creatures they can affect - e.g. creatures that can't be tripped, creatures that are difficult to grapple, creatures with nothing to sunder etc.

With that said, having just one or two is doable and you can cover most enemy types with the right ones.



In 3.5 tripping could knock flying targets out of the sky. In Pathfinder tripping doesn't affect flying targets at all. (Unless you have a specific weapon.)

Ace Trip lets you trip fliers if that's your bag. Sucks that it's a feat, but it's there.



Grappling in Pathfinder has you go into the same square as your foe as opposed to both of you staying in your current squares.

You have that backwards actually - PF grapple has you stay in (adjacent) squares, 3.5 grapple is the one where you enter their space.



And I will agree that Dirty Trick is one of the most potentially powerful manuevers, but its only good with substantial investment and specific character abilities so that it can be done faster than a standard action. (Like a monk archetype who can use any manuever in a flurry - giving up normal flurry.)

Welllll, Quick Dirty Trick can be nabbed as early as level 6, so I don't know if that truly qualifies as "substantial investment." I suppose it depends on your definition, but given that level 6 is when you'd be getting your first iterative anyway...